Skip to main content

About your Search

20121209
20121209
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
, especially justice roberts court is wary of roe v. wade and will not throw out arrangements in 30 or 40 states and will resolve the case. only section 3 is as issue. i believe the court does not want to be overturning arrangements throughout the country on something to delicate. they've learned a lesson that that's not the right role. >> that's talk about that. people are making the comparison to 1973, roe v. wade. 37 states, by law or in their constitutions now ban same-sex marriage but they're legal in nine states as well as the nation's capital, washington, d.c. a new poll, 40% say they approve same-sex marriage. 30% support legal unions, 24% say same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter in any union. president obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage though he wants to leave it to the state issue. some people as bill suggested are comparing this to the 70s when opinion was evolving on abortion. the states seemed to work it out and the court came down with a big ruling and 40 years later we're having a holy war on the issue. how do you see the court reacting? do you see
. they expect the supreme court to be the ultimate decider for the nation. >> it would be the roe v. wade of our generation. >> reporter: they have their critics, conservative legal analyst ed whalen. >> there is nothing in the constitution properly construing that remotely supports a right to same sex marriage. >> reporter: and even some of those who agree with olson and boies say that same sex marriage should be left to the states. there are lots of skeptics out there who say you're going too quickly here, and you're asking the supreme court to do a pretty heavy lift. >> every civil rights struggle, there have always been people who said you're moving too fast, country is not ready for it. how many people in 1954 were saying, country is not ready for desegregation, brown against board of education, too soon. >> reporter: but everyone says this is a conservative court. why are you doing it now? >> because ted is a conservative guy. there are lots of conservative people, the idea that civil rights and human rights is exclusively a liberal preserve, i think it is flat wrong. >> reporter: their cl
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)